Vacancy Reserved For Disabled Persons Identified In 2019 But Advertised In 2023 Would Be Considered Backlog Vacancies: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, which had been identified as far back as 2019 but were advertised only in 2023, would be treated as backlog vacancies. 

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti examined the provision of the M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in detail, noting that the 'recruitment year' refers to the year when the vacancy was identified, not necessarily when the recruitment was initiated. Therefore, the vacancies identified in 2019 but filled later in 2023 would still belong to the 2019 recruitment year.

The bench observed; 

"Therefore, on harmonious construction of the aforesaid provisions of Rule of 2013, it is to be held that the year of identification of vacancy is the recruitment year for that vacancy. In the case in hand, for the vacancy in question, the recruitment year would be 2019 when the vacancies were first identified". 

The dispute arose when the Employee Selection Board (respondent no.2) issued a Joint Examination Advertisement 2023 inviting applications for various posts across 135 departments. Among these were 8 backlog posts of Shorthand typist reserved for candidates with disabilities in the unreserved category (UR)- 2 for visually handicapped, 4 for locomotor disability (LD) and 2 for multiple disability (MD). 

The petitioner, a 50% orthopedically handicapped candidate under the LD category, applied for several posts and was selected as a Hindi Stenographer (Post Code 020)- her first preference. However, after the declaration of the result, when the candidate went for her joining, she was informed that the department had withdrawn the advertisement for this post. 

Therefore, she sought appointment against the Shorthand Typist post, but her claim was denied on the ground that all LD posts had been filled with higher-merit candidates, and her result was cancelled via order dated June 18, 2025. 

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the withdrawal of post code 020 after the declaration of the results violated her right to appointment. It was further contended that under Section 34(2) of the Act of 2016, the unfulfilled MD post should be interchanged and offered to an eligible candidate from another disability category (in this case, LD). 

For Context, Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act mandates that if a reserved vacancy can't be filled in a recruitment year due to unavailability of suitable candidate with benchmark disability, it must be carried forward to the next year. If the vacancy still remains unfilled, it may be filled through interchange among the five disability categories. Only when no eligible person with a disability is available even after such interchange, the employer may fill the post with a non-disabled candidate. The provision also allows interchange of categories, with government approval, when the nature of the vacancy does not permit employment from a particular disability category. 

Government Advocate contended that Section 34(2) was being misinterpreted and asserted that the posts could not be considered 'carried forward' since they were advertised for the first time in 2023, despite being identified earlier. The pandemic had delayed advertisement, but since no prior recruitment attempt was made, the vacancies were not backlog posts. 

The court clarified the meaning of 'backlog vacancies', holding that they include vacancies that remain unfulfilled from the previous year, regardless of whether they were advertised earlier. 

"The term 'backlog' is not defined in the Rules. However, in general parlance, backlog means the vacancies which are identified in previous year but could not be filled due to any reason. Thus, the remaining unfilled vacancies of previous year(s) are called as backlog vacancies. From the aforesaid legal proposition, it becomes clear that carried forward vacancies form a separate and distinct group and are different than the vacancies of the year of actual recruitment. In other words, the carried forward vacancies shall not form part of the vacancies of a later recruitment year nor it shall be counted to work out the percentage of reservation. Thus, whether or not the vacancy were advertised, the carried forward vacancies of previous years are the backlog vacancies", the bench noted. 

Citing the constitutional provision and prior judgments, the court emphasised that carried forward vacancies form a distinct class separate from current recruitment-year vacancies. 

The court, using purposive interpretation, noted that the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' in the provision extends to cases where posts could not be advertised. Hence, both the non-advertised and the non-availability of candidates can justify carrying forward vacancies and interchanging them among disability categories. 

Accordingly, the court noted that since the MD posts were identified in 2019 and remained unfulfilled across successive years, it could be filled by interchanging with an LD candidate (the petitioner in this case). 

The court opined that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the remaining unfilled post of MD category in view of the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act of 2016. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and directed the Commercial Tax Commissioner to appoint the petitioner on the unfilled post of Shorthand Typist as advertised vide Post Code-022 for the MD category. 

Case Title: Vaishali Chaturvedi v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP 19248 of 2024]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 255

For Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav

For Employee Selection Board: Advocate Shashank Indapurkar

For State: Government Advocate G.K. Agrawal

Click here to read/download the Order